Friday, November 6, 2009

More Data On MiG-35, AL-31FP-117S Turbofan & DASH HMD

26 comments:

Gaurav
said...

Question - Not sure you have covered this in your earlier posts butsince you have an inside view of the dealings going on in Indian defence which according to you is the #1 contender and also what are the chances of aircrafts like F-18 and F-16?

Hi Sengupta , would Mig-35 buy would be a good one from logistics , training , weapons point of view , As IAF operates a large fleet of Mig-29 and IN will buy large number of Mig-29K , so Mig-35 with all the TOT and domestic production capability will be more of streaming lining of type IAF operates and logistically speaking makes more common sense ?

Do you have any information on Tejas Mk2 ?

Can we have the same open architecture avionics and weapons suite of Tejas mk2 on IN Mig-29K and Mig-35 ?

To Gaurav: In my humble view the F-16IN Super Viper stands out amongst the rest both in terms of technology and cost-effectiveness. And interestingly, the stars above Lockheed Martin seem to be shining very brightly at the moment as a varsion of the F-16IN is most likely to be selected by the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) as well under the KF-X Project, which calls for procuring 120 such M-MRCAs from 2012 ro replace the ROKAF's existing F-4D/E/Fs. Once the South Koreans make up their mind by this year's end, the per unit cost of the F-16IN will go down even further, especially when compared to those of the Gripen IN and Super Hornet.

To Anon@9.05PM: Yes, a MiG-35 procurement would be a good one PROVIDED the Russians are able to deliver. At a time when RAC-MiG is even unable to roll out the long-promised single-seat MiG-35 and tandem-seat MiG-35D, I have my grave doubts about the debt-saddled RAC-MiG's ability to adhere to the M-MRCA's flight evaluation deadlines.

AS for the avionics suite and mission sensors on board the Tejas Mk2, they will come from India, France, Israel and Germany. But for the MiG-29K/KUB the sensors are almost all-Russian, as will be the case with the MiG-35.

Austin: I totally agree, the Ruskies are seem to be claiming performance parameters which their aerospace industries will not be able to deliver from quite some time in the future because the much hyped-about restructuring and consolidation of Russia's aerospace industries are proceeding at a snail's pace, and the objective of such exercises seem to me ensuring the survival of each and every OKB and manufacturing plant, instead of ensuring the survival of only the fittest. Perhaps that's why in the previous two MAKS expos, no one even displayed a poster or illustration of the AL-41FA or FI! That's also why the IAF and HAL have pragmatically selected the AL-31FP-117S as the definitive powerplant for the FGFA, and have also chosen to make extensive use of lightweight composites on the fuselage, thereby abandoning the Russian approach of using heavier titanium instead of composites.

To Agnivesh: The Trishul SHORADS was just a reverse-engineered OSA-AKM SHORADS/LLQRM, while the Akash SAM round's design was inspired by that of the Kub/Kvadrat. Despite this, the Akash's engagement envelope is inferior to that of a 35km-range E-SHORADS/LLQRM. There was nothing wrong with the Trishul missile as such, rather its command-line-of-sight fire-control system suffered from performance deficiencies. With the Akash, the problem is the deficient range of thr missile round (25km), when the end-users wanted a range of at least 40km. Furthermore, both the Trishul and Akash are not vertically launched, unlike the Barak-8 and SR-SAM. When M-SAMs and E-SHORADS/LLQRMs are available as vertically launched systems, then all three end-users--Army, Navy and Air Force--will procure them in bulk. However, if you look at the Akash, the variant for the Army and that for the IAF differ significantly in terms of launch vehicles, radar carrier vehicle, and support vehicles. This, to be, could have been avoided, thereby saving wasteful expenditure. I do hope that in future the Akash missile's engagement envelope can be extended to a range of 40km.

To Agnivesh: By the way, the assertion by BROADSWORD that "the DRDO has taken 20 years to develop the cross-country mobile, tank-mounted version of the Akash missile system that the Army is now interested in" is NOT TRUE. Financial sanction for initiating R & D work on developing the T-72-based carrier vehicle for both the missile launcher and the Rajendra engagement radar was made available in only 2003 and by 2006 the first prototype carrier/launch vehicles were ready for field evaluations.

Prasun, tried doing an online search... To the best of your knowledge, what advantages besides better image resolution do newer targeting pod like Damocles, Sniper, Pantera, Litening and ATFLIR offer over the Nitehawk?

Given the scarcity of funds and the current political climate in Malaysia, do you expect any deals to be signed at LIMA and in 2010?

Are the RMAF F/A-18Ds fitted with a data link to provide mid course guidance for the AMRAAMS? Thank you.

Hello prasun da 1.As there is news that russia is not supplying spares to us timely can we have a spare factory which the IN is doing for the mig 29k for all the aircrafs of russian origin this will solve the spare problem and if we can manufacture the spares by ourself then it is great.

2.can you tell about the update prospective of the il-76?

3.can you give me link or brochure image where i can find the updates on the jaguar darin 3 updates

hi Prasun, thanx for ur reply you have revealed a lot regrdng Iran. sticking to same topic wouldnt the US be wary of others(middle east) trying to acquire such nukes as just an uncertainity over irans nukes may be unsettling to them(israel too denies but there are speculations).now many may try for nukes or is it bcoz THE US is confident of dealing with them tro BMD.the same of north korea.the US could have carried out a strike over the pyongyang reactor(if not eliminating atleast set an example and induce fears or assasinations so that they may not go far).as you have implied they have not put in 100pcent to stop iran,nk did they fear such a strike could damage its standing after iraq(i think ulikely) if so why israel carried out airstikes over syria ? what was the likely objective they worked on?secondly livefist posted abt an indian army rfp for light tanks(100tracked 200 8X8 wheeled)your analysis of its reqmnt,contenders ur pick .thanks in advance I cant imagine how great a book you might write !!!

To Faris: New-geneation LDPs enable the carrier aircraft to cruise at higher altitudes like 40,000 feet ASL whereas LDPs like the Night Hawk and Litening-2 limit the aircraft's cruising altitude to 20,000 feet. Furthermore, the new pods have two-way on-board data-links that enable the airborne aircraft to relay real-time photos of the target area to the ground-based close air support forward observer's laptop and he in turn give the final confirmation of the target/s to be struck with PGMs, thereby ensuring both hit accuracy and avoiding collateral damage or blue-on-blue engagements. The British call this system ROVER.The only deal likely to be signed during LIMA is for the Vympel R-77 BVRAAMs for the Su-30MKMs. Regarding the RMAF F/A-18Ds, they all come with the same standard hardwiring as those of the US Navy/USMC. Therefore, when it comes to upgrading the capabilities, it is just about uploading the relevant software to the fire-control system and inputing the activation crypto-code, plus procuring the compatible weapons launch pylon adaptation kit. Thus, when the AMRAAMs were acquired, all that was required was just the software uploading.

To hacker: There are no problems of spares supplies with regard to combat aircraft. The problems are only for aircraft like the IL-38SD and Tu-142M, which are in service in far lower numbers than the MiGs and Sukhois. I had last year already uploaded charts of the upgraded IL-78MKI-90.And there are no available brochures on the DARIN-3 because the architecture is still evolving and has yet to be finalised.

prasun with numerous devastating terrorist attacks emerging form the pakistani soil like parliament attack,26/11 some of them,pakistani negligence in acting against the perpetrators like leaving saeed free and regular violation of seizefire across the pakistan border what can india do now can pakistan be declared as a failed state in UN.since a war with pakistan will hurt our economic growth can we ask USA to make drone attack on let camps in POK.

Hi Sengupta ,china is playing a proxy war with us they cannot afford a war with india now to retain there economic growth so they are supplying pakistan with arms to fight how can india counter that and china proliferated in supplying nuclear bombs and technology to pakistan then whay doesnot the UN impose sanction on china?

prasun,what is the uranium enrichment percentage in arihant since higher percentage means almost life time fuel supply and the highly costly and time consuming process of refueling is not required in which generation of naval sub reactor does the reactor of arihant fall and what power output in Mwt does the reactor produce?

To Anon@11:02AM: The terrible consequences of the fact that the US along with Russia and Japan mis-handled the North Korean WMD proliferation since the mid-1990s are now only too evident in the Middle East and South Asia, since it was North Korea that gave not only the technologes to obtain and reprocess plutonium to countries like Iran and Syria, but also supplied the delivery means (ballistic missiles) for n-warheads to Pakistan, Iran and Syria. And now, to make matters worse, the current government in Japan seems to be at odds with the US, falsely thinking that China will never allow the emergence of a nuclear weapons-armed North Korea! Japan will soon learn the hard way that 'defensive diplomacy' is looked down upon as a sign of weakness by both China and North Korea! And all this has enormous security implications for India as there are signs that North Korea is now trying to supply n-research reactors for obtaining plutonium to countries like Myanmar. Israel carried out a pre-emptive strike inside Syria last year to destroy the half-built PHWR research reactor that was supplied by North Korea (and funded wholly by Iran) for obtaining plutonium. A similar strike will be possible only against the 10mW PHWR, its heavy water production plant, and a plutonium reprocessing facility that Iran is building in Arak. If Iran wants to n-weaponise, then it too will do so like North Korea did--i.e. with weapons-grade plutonium, and not with highly-enriched uranium. That's why all this talk and needless speculation on pre-emptive air strikes against existing Iranian faciities for low-enriched uranium is just that--talk. The only likely and viable target for such air strikes will be the three facilities in Arak.

To Anon@2:48PM: The main advantage of VL missile is its rapid activation and quick reaction-time, as the launcher does not need to be activated and slaved in azimuth and elevation. In addition, VL missiles are cannistered and maintenance-free for up to 10 years.

To Anon@3:32PM: TopOwl and Dash-3 HMDs are of contemporary design and are second to none. I only wish IAF HQ had chosen either of them for its Su-30MKI aircrew way back in 2002, instead of the bulky and rather performance-limited Sura-M from Russia.

To hacker: It all depends on the operator's deployment mode. In case of the IAF, Akash will be employed only for the air defence of vulnerable points (VP) like fixed infrastructure (air bases, etc). The Army's Corps of Air Defence Artillery on the other hand will have a far-more dispersed ground-based deployment for divisional air defence over a wide frontage and depth. Hence, the IAF can do away with the Battery Surveillance Radar, while the Army needs this radar for each of the four Akash Batteries (together making up one Battalion/Regiment/Group of the Akash) as a greater volume of airspace is required to be defended against a greater number of aerial threats.

To Anon@11:31AM: As I had stated earlier, it is best for India to do nothing other than beef up its homeland security apparatus, and let NATO's ISAF forces assume responsibility to hunt down and eliminate all Pakistan-based terrorists, no matter where they may be.

To Anon@11:35AM: How can any of the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council pass UN-mandated sanctions against China--another permanent member? It is just not possible.

To Anon@11:45AM: Firstly, the Arihant's n-reactor is not of the life-long type--the reactor core will have to be replaced after 10 years of operation. Secondly, the reactor design permits only the usage of commercial-standard low-enriched uranium simply because the n-reactor on the Arihant is derived from a design originally meant for use by n-powered ice-breakers. Russia never did give India any access to any contemporary MILSPEC-standard n-reactor.

Will the IAFs Mig-29 be upgraded to Mig-29MT standard?Will the upgraded IAFs Mig-29 have fly-by-wire flight control system? Will the upgraded IAFs Mig-29 surpass the capabilities of the soon to be acquired Pak F-16E/F Block 50/52s?If the IAFs Mig-29 is upgraded to Mig-29MT standard then it will surpass the capabilities of Pak F-16E/F Block 50/52s as written in the second last para of your second article on Mig-35 here.

You have written earlier that the main difference between the F-16E/F Block 60 Desert Falcon and the F-16IN Super Viper will be in the area of customised mission software and avionics architecture, which will guarantee full operational sovereignty to the IAF.I think another difference will be the radar,APG-80 AESA in case of the F-16E/F Block 60 Desert Falcon and SABR,which is one generation ahead as written by you ,in case of the F-16IN Super Viper. Am i right?Can you please explain what difference in the area of avionics architecture between the F-16E/F Block 60 Desert Falcon and the F-16IN Super Viper?

In your article on DASH HMD fourth generation AAMs are mentioned.What are the features of fourth generation AAMs?Does it mean AAMs with thrust-vectoring, super maneuverable missiles?Is the Astra BVRAAM a fourth generation AAM?If not ,then ,will the DRDO make such in the future?Can the Astra BVRAAM be upgraded in near future with increased range and thrust-vectoring, super maneuverable capabilities?

To Anon@7:45PM: The IAF's upgraded MiG-29UPGs will NOT have a fly-by-wire flight control system, but will have a MIL-STD-1553B digital databus, glass cockpit (just like the MiG-29K), FADEC for the RD-33-3 turbofans, an integrated defensive aids suite, plus the Zhuk-M2E radar (the Indian Navy has the earlier Zhuk-M1E radar on its MiG-29K/KUBs) and OLS-UE IRST sensor. The operational data link (ODL) will come from Israel's Tadiran SpectraLink (same as that on the Su-30MKI, Tejas Mk1 and Navy's MiG-29s). All in all, the MiG-29UPG will be more advanced than the MiG-29SMT, and will be superior to the Block 52 F-16s when it comes to air superiority. Four single-seat MiG-29B-12s and two MiG-29UBs are presently in Moscow for the upgrade package installation. The AL-31FP-117S turbofan could power the Su-30MKI provided the aircraft's air intakes are modified to cater to increased air flow reqmts.

To Anon@7.46PM: The avionics architecture of the F-16E/F Block 60 Desert Falcon and the F-16IN Super Viper will be the same. The radar, however, will be the SABR, not the APG-80. And the various mission software packages, including that for the electronic threat libraries, will be customised for the IAF. Fourth-generation AAMs will be as supermanoeuvrable as existing third-generation AAMs, but they will also feature sensor fused dual-mode or tri-mode sensors for terminal homing. That will eliminate the need for having two different sensors--IIR and active monopulse radar--and instead one will have a single BVRAAM equipped with dual-mode or tri-mode sensors for both within-visual-range and beyond-visual-range interceptions. In addition, they will also have on-board data links capable of receiving mid-course guidance cues from AEW & C platforms. One can already see this being implemented on the Meteor and AM-120C AMRAAM. In these two areas--dual-/tri-mode terminal stage sensors and on-board data links--the Russians are lagging behind the Europeans and the US.